UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAKHTAWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. F. O. Nos. 279 and 280 of 1972 as both the appeals arise out of the one and the same order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bakhtawar Singh and Prem Singh claimants were going on the Kharar--Chandigarh road on 7th July, 1969 at about 10. 30 P. M. when bus No. CHW--80 came from behind and struck into the Godda (Bullockcart) of the claimants. Pipes and other tubewell equipment were being carried on the Gadda. As a result of this accident, both the claimants suffered injuries as also the bullocks. Some damage was also caused to the tubewell equipment. According to the claimants, their Gadda was travelling on the left side of the road when the bus in question came from behind at a very fast speed without lights and struck into the Gadda. They thus averred that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,000.00for injuries, mental and physical pain and Rs. 4,500.00for the damages caused to their property.

(2.) ON the other hand, the appellant who was respondent in the claim petition pleaded that the Gadda was carrying long pipes which were lying loose on it and it was travelling in the middle of the road. When the bus was about to cross the Gadda, the bullocks got scared and suddenly turned towards the left and thus blocked the road. The bulging pipes came in front of the bus and struck against it. The accident was thus alleged to have been caused due to no fault of the bus driver. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not assailed the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 and rightly. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the bus in question was being driven without lights at the time of the accident. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of both the claimants whose testimony finds corroboration from the statement of Charan Singh, another eye-witness of the occurrence. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that R. W. 1. Charanjit Singh, Mechanic, and Janak Raj, who were produced on behalf of the respondents, were not present at the spot and thus their statements could not be relied upon. Nothing could be pointed out to show that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 has been wrongly recorded. That being the case, the finding on issue No. 1 is hereby affirmed.